Steve's review of the F30 says, "Rapid shooting in single shot mode captured images at 1.6 second intervals without the flash." That's with a 512 MB Type H card. Since Type H is about 3.5X faster than Type M, that would be terrible if it took 5.6 seconds between shots with a Type M card, but I'm sure that isn't the case.

I would assume that performance is usually about the same, but maybe Type H is a little faster when you have the quality set to Fine.

Looking at the read speeds, though, I'll bet you could tell a difference between the two pretty easily when browsing through pictures in review mode.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't have any real need to get a 2 GB card (I'd need an extra battery to have any hope of filling it), but if the performance isn't much different, it might consider it just in case I go movie crazy.

If you're truly concerned about speed, the 'H' xD seems to be the way to go. I'm not sure if there would be a recognizable difference in real world photography, but if there is, why not get the fastest? I think the 2 gb card would be overkill. You can probably pick up two 1 gb 'H" cards for the price of the 2 gb 'M'. Two would be better (IMHO) from a reliability standpoint - if a card craps out, you can still take pics. I think you can get about 15 minutes of video on a 1 gb card, which is pretty good. If you need more than that, you might consider a video camera.

Maybe you could buy both types of cards, do a test, then publish the results here...hmmm...